My point is that since there are references to the countervailing duty cases and there are references to the ECC challenge and NAFTA throughout the softwood lumber agreement, it is indeed in order for this committee to provide direction to the government on what the next step should be.
Now, I agree with your interpretation that since there is no specific reference to loan guarantees within the softwood lumber agreement, your point--though I accept it with regret--is well taken that a notice of motion is required. But in the case of motion number two, it is very clear that the softwood lumber agreement that was initialed on July 1 refers specifically to the countervailing duty orders and specifically to the litigation that has been undertaken since then. As a result, it is in order to consider this now. And I intend to bring back motion number one on the loan guarantees at the next meeting of this committee.